Sound Figures According to Novalis and Ritter

In fragment 245 of Das Allgemeine Brouillon (The General Notebook), Novalis defines the nature of speaking language through metaphors, including the physical attributes of the sound figures:

245. Music. Consonants are fingerings, and their sequences and alternations belong to the application. Vowels are strings of sound, or batons of air. The lungs are [the] bow in motion. (…) (p. 37)²⁰

245. MUSIK. Die Consonanten sind die Fingersetzungen und ihre Folge und Abwechselung gehört zur Aplicatur. Die Vocale sind die tönenden Saiten, oder Luftstäbe.²¹ Die Lunge ist der bewegte Bogen. (...) (III, p. 285)

These first three sentences call to mind not only a stringed instrument being played by hand, but also a human voice producing sounds with the mouth by way of the movement of air from the lung up through the vibrating column of the throat. The “finger placements” (“Fingersetzungen”) also evoke the fingers placed on the edges of a plate to form additional nodal lines of a sound figure, and the “moving bow” (“bewegte Bogen”) which draws them stimulates the movement of the sand and sound from the plate (see Figure 2).²²

17 Ritter later collaborated with Hans Christian Ørsted (1777–1851) on this project. For a detailed account of the partnership and collaboration between Ritter and Ørsted, see Christensen (1995).

18 Menke (1999), p. 70.

19 Benjamin (1963) was the first to recognize the importance of the “Appendix” for its conceptual work on the relation of language, music, and writing (pp. 240–243).

20 The translation by Wood (Novalis, 2007) misses the “the” in “Die Lunge ist der bewegete Bogen.”

21 Here, “Luftstäbe,” translated as “batons of air,” is a poetic license for wind instruments, indicating an air column of a rigid vibrating body.

22 For a demonstration of how Chladni Figures are formed, this video, although of poor visual quality, is helpful: https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=tliBfYdddhU (Cortel 2009).

Figure 2: From William Henry Stone (1879) Elementary Lessons on Sound.

Of particular relevance to this analysis is Novalis’ interpretation in Fragment 362 which, as I will show, is very similar to Ritter’s.²³

362. PHYSICS AND GRAMMAR. A dampened sound in close proximity appears far away to us./ Lateral motions of the air in sound. Figurelike motions of sound, like letters of the alphabet. (Were letters originally acoustic figures? Letters a priori?) (…) Colored images are figures of light. The light ray is the [striking] bow of [the] violin.²⁴ (…) Every word should be an acoustic formula for its construction and pronunciation—the pronunciation itself is a higher, imitative sign of a higher pronunciation—Construction of the meaning of a word. (…)” (p. 54, bolded text my emphasis)

362. PHYS[IK] UND GRAMM[ATIK]. Ein gedämpfter, sehr naher Ton dünkt uns weit zu seyn./ Lateralbewegungen der Luft beym Schall. Figurirte Schallbewegungen wie Buchstaben. (Sollten die Buchstaben ursprünglich acustische Figuren gewesen seyn. Buchst[aben] a priori?) (…) Farbenbilder sind Lichtfiguren. Der Lichtstrahl ist der streichende Fiedelbogen. (…) Jedes Wort sollte eine acustische Formel seiner Construction, seiner Aussprache seyn – die Aussprache selbst ist ein Höheres, mimisches Zeichen einer höhern Aussprache – Sinnconstruction des Worts. (...) (III, p. 305, bolded text my emphasis)

23 Early 20^th century Novalis-Ritter scholar Heilborn (1901) accuses Ritter of plagiarism here (p. 135), but Specht (2010) argues that it was rather a product of their Romantic concept of “Symphilosophie”—the integration of many voices into one’s own thinking (p. 159). A similar approach is found in music. Composers have been known to take musical quotes from other composers in honor of the composer and quoted piece (known commonly as “borrowing”). In Burkholder’s (2019) definition, “Musical borrowing has typically been studied as an issue related to a particular repertory or genre, such as the Renaissance mass or the 20^th-century avant garde, or to a particular composer, such as Handel or Mahler. Yet the use of existing music as a basis for new music is pervasive in all periods and traditions, parallel to and yet different from the practices of borrowing, reworking and allusion that contribute to the formation of traditions and the creation of meaning in literature, architecture, painting and sculpture.”

24 Wood’s (2007) translation is “The light ray is the stroked bow of a violin,” but it should be “The light ray is the striking bow of the violin.”

Looking at these figures as though they are letters, Novalis sees the basis of the language of nature. With each word then as an “acoustic formula” of its construction and pronunciation, Novalis emphasizes that there should be no separation between the signifier, its sound, and the signified. The word, sound or “acoustic formula”, and meaning (“Sinnconstruction,” which Novalis describes as a “mimetic sign of a higher pronunciation”) should ideally be one. Sanskrit offers a helpful model: Hopkins (1971) explains, “Sanskrit words were not just arbitrary labels assigned to phenomena; they were the sound forms of objects, actions, and attributes (…)” (p.

20). Rather than interpreting this language of nature as an expression of human words, Novalis imagines that the language is always in itself an expression of being.

Novalis’ ideas of language intermingle with scientific observations of the figures in the remainder of the fragment—from the movements of light and warmth, to a description of an experiment with phosphorus powder.²⁵ These notes indicate that he worked with these materials himself, similar to the way Ritter records his experimental work and plans. His scientific descriptions are also complemented by combinations of scientific observation and poetic metaphor, for example, “The ray of light is the striking bow of the violin.” But then what does light have to do with the sound figures? Ritter makes similar claims as Novalis in the “Appendix”

to his Fragments from 1810 but explains them further.

Ritter’s “Appendix” oscillates between passages addressing scientific observations of the sound figures and poetic speculations on the relationships between music and language. The opening first few pages of the “Appendix” closely follow a letter that he wrote to Hans Christian Ørsted, in which he discusses the electrical qualities of the sound figures and speculates on performing similar experiments via chemical materials—thereby creating chemical sound figures.²⁶ Suddenly, in the third paragraph he writes:

—It would be nice if that which is externally clear here, would be precisely that which the sound-figure is to us innerly:—light figure, firewriting). Every tone thus has its letter immediately by itself; and the question is whether we do not in fact only hear writing,—read, when we hear,—see writing!—And is not every seeing with the inner eye hearing, and hearing a seeing of, and through, within? (p. 473)

—Schön, wäre es, wie, was hier äußerlich klar würde, genau auch wäre, was uns die Klangfigur innerlich ist:—Lichtfigur. Feuerschrift). Jeder Ton hat somit seinen Buchstaben immediate bey sich; und es ist die Frage, ob wir nicht überhaupt nur Schrift hören,—lesen, wenn wir hören,—Schrift sehen!—Und ist nicht jedes Sehen

25 “(…) What takes the place of sand here? One actually (forces) the sound to impress itself—to become enciphered—on a copperplate.

Further application of this idea. (Strew phosphorus powder on a plate—so that it absorbs the colors of the different light, or after gently heating, so that it combusts—and radiates—the differently formed and diversely contacted bodies in strange figures—Preparation of such a powder). (…)” (p. 54) (“(…) Was vertritt wohl hier die Stelle des Sandes? Man (zwingt) eigentlich den Schall sich selbst abzudrucken – zu chiffriren – auf eine Kupfertafel zu bringen. Weitere Anwendung dieser Idee. (Bestreuung einer Tafel mit Phosphorpulver – das die Farben des verschiednen Lichts annähme, oder das bey einer gelinden Erwärmung verschiedengestalteter und mannichfach berührter Körper in sonderbaren Figuren brennte – und leuchtete – Bereitung eines solchen Pulvers.) (…)” (III, p. 305))

26 Hans Christian Ørsted, with whom Ritter studied and was in close contact, was a Danish physicist and chemist who worked with various plates of metal, glass, sand and other materials to produce sound figures. He modeled his figures after the work of Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni (whom Ritter also mentions in his fragments). Together, Ørsted and Ritter were able to displace earlier resonance theories by discovering that no vibration can occur without electricity—which is his interpretation of added energy (Erlmann, 2014, p. 194). Music as sound also contains electricity, and therefore also light. Ritter is not just writing on a poetic, Romantic notion, but rather sees the electric current in connection with the sound figures as an energy force necessary for life on multiple levels. Strässle (2004) argues that “Chladni’s and Oersted’s Klangfiguren were no more than external visualizations of acoustic phenomena. Ritter’s aim, however, is rather different in that he is attempting to theorize the inner representation of tone” (p. 31). However, Ørsted’s work in Naturphilosophie is largely overlooked in the scholarship—his work was more in line with Ritter than with Chladni. Christensen (1995) explains that Ørsted went on to discover electromagnetism in 1820, which Ritter did not live long enough to experience. “Ørsted’s discovery was probably inspired by Ritter’s failed experiment of 1803 on galvanism and magnetism” (Christensen, 1995, p. 164).

mit dem innern Auge Hören, und Hören ein Sehen von und durch innen? (p. 472)²⁷

Ritter wishes to discover that that which is clear in the outer appearances of the sound figures could be as clear on the inside of the body. He suggests that the appearance of this language could be connected in an organic, perhaps synaesthetic way within the body as a result of the combined perception from the eyes and ears. In a footnote to this passage after the word “firewriting” (“Feuerschrift”), Ritter explains that there are electrical processes which accompany the emergence of tone as a part of oxidation processes. He therefore questions whether sound is not also accompanied by light, which would suggest a more natural, organic connection between that which is visible and that which is audible—that seeing and hearing the language should happen at the same time.²⁸ Unlike in the semiotic theory of human language in Course in General Linguistics (1916) by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), which shows how sounds are arbitrarily assigned to the symbols/letters of an alphabet and the signifier and signified are therefore separate from each other, this language of nature, the word itself, comes from the object it is describing—they are contained in each other:²⁹

In general, however, the writing must be that which is written by language, by tone, by the word itself. Here one maintains for music, or the general language, the hieroglyph, or [the one] which completely writes out the entire tone, the entire chord, etc. The speaking [thing] is identical to the spoken since everything only speaks itself. The matter itself is therefore here the writing, the note. (…) All writing must relate to the hieroglyph as organ to organic whole (…). (p. 489)

Ueberall aber muß die Schrift das von der Sprache, dem Ton, dem Worte, selbst, Geschriebene, seyn. Hier erhält man dann für die Musik, oder die allgemeine Sprache, die Hieroglyphe, oder die völlig vollständig den ganzen Ton, den ganzen Accord, u. s.

w. ausschreibt. Das Sprechende ist dem Ausgesprochenen gleich, da alles nur sich selbst ausspricht. Die Sache selbst ist als hier die Schrift, die Note. (...) Alle Schrift zusammen muß sich zur Hieroglyphe wie Organ zum organischen Ganzen (…) verhalten. (p. 488) Just as the appearance of sound and light are inseparable, so, too, is the relationship between the spoken and written word. Unlike Novalis, Ritter places importance on the concept of the hieroglyph here. By the time Ritter wrote this “Appendix,” the Rosetta Stone had already been discovered, so the possibility of translating the hieroglyphs was a reality.

As signs that represent “logograms (words), phonograms (sounds), and determinatives (placed at the end of the word to help clarify its meaning)”³⁰ the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt (however static) provide Ritter with an example of how to approach uncovering the

multi-27 Translator Holland (Ritter, 2010) offers a bilingual edition of Ritter’s Fragments and “Appendix.” The page numbers for the German quotes will always precede those of the corresponding translation.

28 In connection with the language-nature of the sound figures, Ritter writes about the Lichtenberg Figuren (“Lichtenberg Figures”), which were discovered by German physicist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742–1799) and are produced by applying an electric current through solids, liquids, or gases. Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni had initially received the idea to perform the sound figures experiments after having studied Lichtenberg’s Lichtfiguren. Interestingly, these Lichtenberg Figures can also appear on the surface of the human body, for example, after being hit by lightning—a scarring, or as Ritter would argue, a “writing” that appears on the outside of the body. See for example Domart, Garet, E. and Garet, Y. (2000).

29 Novalis takes this idea further, suggesting that the word should also be a mimetic sign of its “higher pronunciation,” that is, its “meaning”:

“Every word should be an acoustic formula for its construction and pronunciation—the pronunciation itself is a higher, imitative sign of a higher pronunciation—Construction of the meaning of a word.” (p. 54) (“Jedes Wort sollte eine acustische Formel seiner Construction, seiner Aussprache seyn – die Aussprache selbst ist ein Höheres, mimisches Zeichen einer höhern Aussprache – Sinnconstruction des Worts.” (III, p.

305))

30 Scoville (2015).

layered essence of music as a universal language through the sound figures—not as understood by the mind, but rather by the body. Ritter sees language—both written and spoken—as an entire, organic system in motion.³¹ Electricity, in his thinking, is the means by which light and sound travel—it is what connects humans with nature, and in turn, the entire universe. Music occupies and exists in space, then, not only in time. Indeed, he calls upon the Music of the Spheres to support his claim, suggesting that the music of all worldly bodies travels from the sun through the rays of light—that music, the general language, which split into specific languages, originated from the sun.³² He continues this thought:

The world, as far as it is and can become visible is this letter, this writing. The word writes, the letter resounds; each, inseparable is being, consciousness, life; and so on up to God. Writing, word, light, and consciousness fall into one. The eye [is] the sense for writing which can only be recognized on and through the sound. The sound itself however is light, which must already belong to another sense than the eye because the eye does not see the light but rather only by way of light = tone. (p. 485)

Die Welt, soweit sie sichtbar ist, und werden kann, ist dieser Buchstabe, diese Schrift.

Das Wort schreibt, der Buchstabe tönt; beydes in seiner Unzertrennbarkeit ist das Sein, das Bewußtseyn, das Leben; so herauf bis zum Gott. Schrift, Wort, Licht und Bewußtseyn fallen in Eins. Das Auge der Sinn für Schrift, die nur am und durch den Ton erkannt werden kann. Der Ton selbst aber ist Licht, das ohnehin einem anderen Sinne, als dem Auge, gehören mußte, weil das Auge das Licht nicht sieht, sondern nur vermittelst des Lichts = Tons. (p. 484)

Just as there are types of light that are not visible to the human eye (for example ultraviolet rays, which Ritter discovered in 1801), Ritter postulates that there are also sounds, not audible by the human ear. Because sound and light waves do not interfere with each other, Ritter finds them to be intimately connected; in fact, toward the end of his “Appendix” he concludes, “Therefore:

tone and light do not interfere with each other! How could they however, in essence, since they are indeed one?” (p. 507) (“Also: Ton und Licht stören sich nicht! —Wie aber im Grunde auch könnten sie es, da sie ja Eins sind?” (p. 506)).

While today we know that sound and light are not one and the same, Ritter’s theory was ahead of its time, as it was not until Heinrich Hertz’s discovery of radio waves in 1886 that there was scientific proof that sound can travel via invisible light waves.³³ Ritter suggests then, that like the direct relationship between sound and light, and the spoken and written word in these figures, the understanding of the self can be uncovered in the same way by studying this phenomenon in nature—which brings us back to The Novices of Sais.

31 As Wetzels (1971) writes, the Jena Romantics, inspired by Friedrich Schelling’s Naturphilosophie, thought of nature as “one huge living organism;” they therefore desired to find the “soul” of this all-encompassing unity of inorganic and organic nature (p. 45). Erlmann (2014) adds, “Nature was seen as a coherent whole, with Volta’s electric pile being but one element in a long chain joining the organic and inorganic.

In fact, the cosmos itself was seen as an immense battery and galvanism as the ‘key to the entry into innermost Nature’” (p. 191).

32 Echoing Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) in “Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache” (“Treatise on the Origins of Language, 1772”), Ritter asserts that sound, and therefore music, was the first general language—then, human languages developed from it.

See especially pp. 473–476 in the “Appendix” for the German and English references to Herder.

33 Shlain (1991) explains, “Although radio waves are at the far end of the electromagnetic spectrum and are invisible, they are a form of light”

(p. 285).